1,353 reputation
925
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 30
visits member for 3 years, 2 months
seen Jun 27 at 4:45

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
At the center of this, I'm challenging the nearly universal assumption of the validity of HUP, everywhere, under all circumstances, at all times and conditions. I had hoped that asking this in the form of a Proof by Contradiction, that somehow by accepting the invalidity of HUP there is something more contradictory that MUST be accepted (other than HUP itself).
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
This is more pointed and specific question to help illuminate implications of such a scenario. At the core they've got the same concept in mind, but a different approach. To clarify then - IF The Box existed, all modern physics is out the window? ALL of it? What's modern mean? Electricity, gravity, transistors, magnetism, string theory, big bang cosmology? What specifically would have to go, besides just QED? Why does all QED have to go?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I have only made one assumption: the existence of a box within which HUP is violated. YOU have assumed HUP/QED, so you are then finding a contradiction. I have not, nor am I maintaining that QED holds - indeed I asked what it would mean for QED - would it be refined, or discarded?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Where did energy get brought into the mix? Why does it require energy or probing to 'be knowledgable' of a numerical value? Perhaps the box is so sensitive to bouncing that the momentum inside of it can be determined by reading the information from the bounces, not throwing energy at the particles.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I suppose what I meant rather than 'with infinite precision' was really 'precise enought that in combination with the size of the box, $\sigma_x \sigma_p < \frac{ħ}{2}$, in clear violation of HUP. In other words - precise enough that HUP is no longer true.
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
@AlecS So would you then take the existence of such a box in our universe to mean that our universe is wholly classical? Or just classical inside the box? If so, why would it appear to be Quantum Mechanical when really being classical? How about making it an answer?
Dec
14
comment A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
@Holowitz - then there's more to addition than previously discovered, our theories on flight are incomplete, the lunar colonies will have plenty to snack on, we're all wrong, and $3.59. Your comment is precisely what I took time above to distinguish as unhelpful, and you clearly aren't interested in considering it - so why bother commenting?
Dec
14
asked A thought experiment with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Dec
4
awarded  Caucus
Oct
12
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
The obvious alternative I'm pushing for discussion here is: an electron behaves like a wave under certain conditions as far as we can tell now, but may not always be represented by a waveform under all cases. This way the contradictions with bringing one to rest that are inherent to the wave interpretation may not contradict a particle from stopping under all circumstances, and I'm not just quoted things like fourier transforms and commutation relations, properties inherent to waves, when I'm discussing a particle that may or may not be a wave.
Oct
12
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
@JerrySchirmer "an electron looks very, very much like a wave". That sounds fine, until you start saying therefore it IS a wave. The shadow of a man can look very, very much like a woman, except when you turn the lights on, he isn't. I'm asking for justification between the 'well, on some experiments on earth an electron behaves like a wave' to 'an electron is a wave'. Accordingly, when we run into something a wave cannot do, like stop, why we then associate this characteristic with an election and say an electron cannot stop. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking why it's assumed right.
Oct
11
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
21
accepted Why are L4 and L5 lagrangian points stable?
Sep
20
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Why can't it 'fall in' but not be captured by a proton? It seems through Quantum Tunnelling that an electron can sometimes be inside of a nucleus - so what's stopping it from just 'touching' the proton and sitting on its surface?
Sep
20
accepted What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
Sep
20
comment What would be likely to completely stop a subatomic particle assuming it was possible?
So what's stopping a ground state hydrogen electron from emitting that one last quanta as a photon and falling into the nucleus?
Sep
16
comment Lever Mechanics - How to formulate an ideal lever launch
Thanks a ton! I can work with this, with a few changes. First, I do not want the counterweight to hit the ground, that would cause way too much stress. The cradle that m sits in would be designed in such a way that it would leave the lever at a certain angle. Second, I don't require m to sit at the ground initially, I'd prefer a general $\theta_0$ to take it's place. Now, what I'm really desiring is a formula that starts $v_{launch} = $ and I can plug in everything else. What I really want is a 10kg mass to go 6 km/s, then to see how crazy my arm lengths and counterweight masses are.
Sep
15
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
I, for one, would just like it clarified more explicitly and often that we're assuming QM to be correct, an assumption which itself assumes additional assumptions. Then the EPR 'Paradox' would read: {option 1 (local variables)} {option 2 (FTL information travel)} OR {QM is not correct}.
Sep
15
comment Could the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turn out to be false?
Then why must it hold true for the entangled particles in the EPR Paradox? Why not say the measurement of one breaks the entanglement/waveform, or just that one can 'beat' the HUP this way? Instead we say 'no way, the HUP is OBVIOUSLY true, so therefore this is a PARADOX'.
Sep
15
comment Could we make a trebuchet that could launch objects to a stable orbit?
I'm well aware, but I just wanted to point out that we're not talking IMPOSSIBLE anymore, just really difficult/expensive. Even if it's 50%, then just use a 400,000kg weight. The point being - perhaps not out of our grasp for much longer!